Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support

His All,

happy to see so much consensus :-)

<chair hat on>

As a chair I have to point out that if you add text in 6830bis to allocate the last bit and refer to draft-lewis-lisp-gpe you are creating an authoritative dependency on a to a document that as for now is not even WG item.
This will block the publication of 6830bis as RFC (remember the intro document…….).

There are two possible solutions:

A. 6830bis remains unchanged, leaving the P-bit marked as reserved for future use. draft-lewis-lisp-gpe will than allocate this last bit and detail the operations. 

B. We merge the two documents.

I do not have a preference, up to the WG to decide, but better to avoid document dependencies that will block publication.

<chair hat off>

Ciao

L.

> On 29 Nov 2017, at 23:32, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> I would like to suggest a way to address mutiprotocol support in RFC6830bis, that may address what was discussed in Singapore. 
> This is based on using the last reserved bit in the LISP header as P bit to indicate support for multiprotocol encapsulation, as specified in the LISP-GPE draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-lisp-gpe <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-lisp-gpe>). 
> The header, as specified in section 5.1, would look like: 
> 
>        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    L   |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K|            Nonce/Map-Version/Next-Protocol    |
>    I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    S / |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
>    P   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> 
> and the text in section 5.3 that reserves the 6th bit would be replaced by: 
> 
>    P: The P-bit is the Next Protocol bit. When this bit is set to
>       1, the V-bit MUST be set to 0 and the Nonce length, when used, is 
>       limited to 16 bits. Refer to [draft-lewis-lisp-gpe] for more details. 
>       The P-bit is set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit Next 
>       Protocol field encoded as:
> 
>      x x x 0 x 1 x x
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K|           Nonce               | Next-Protocol |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> 
> I will have to refresh the LISP-GPE draft, and reflect the allocations of the KK bits according to RFC8061 and Nonce. One of the K bits was used by LISP-GPE to indicate OAM packets, but that same functionality can be done using the Next-Protocol field. 
> 
> The use of the P-bit is not compatible with the Map-Versioning feature, but an equivalent function can be specified (if needed) with a Next-Protocol shim header. I can add text to the LISP-GPE draft to reflect that. 
> 
> This would address the multiprotocol working item included in the current charter. 
> 
> I can very quickly update the LISP-GPE draft to reflect this, but I wanted to hear what the group thinks first. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Fabio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp